I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 0 2 8 9 - S CT 3 M COM P AN Y
v. S IM E O N J O H N S O N , et a l.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 24/ 2004 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. JA N N IE M
. L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HOLM ES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : BA RR Y W. F OR D W A L K E R (B IL L ) JO N E S , III SCO TT W I LLI A M BA TES BA RRY CLA YTO N C AM PBELL A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EES: SU ZA N N E G RI G G I N S K EY S I S AAC K. BYRD, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: DI S P OS I T I ON: CI VI L - OTH ER REV ERSED A ND REN DER ED I N PA RT; REV ERSED A ND REM AN DED I N PA RT - 04/ 13/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CO BB, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s i nt er l ocut or yappea l comes fr om t he H ol m es C ount yC i r cui tC our t ’ s deni al of t he 3M C om pany ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s for forum non conveni ens . O n appea l , 3M ar gues t he tr i al
cour terr ed bec aus e: ( 1) i t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o appl yt he mul t i
- fac t or - bal anci ng tes t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e a p p lica tio n o f f o ru m n o n c o n v e n ien s is a p p ro p ria te, a n d (2 ) it vi ol at ed 3M ’ s due pr oces s r i ght s under t he U ni t ed St at es and M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i ons . T he

### Th e t er m “who lly out- of -s tateappell ee s”re fers to those 18 app el le es wh o n ei ther 1 

### li ve in Miss is sipp i nor cl ai m a c auseof

ac ti onthat

arose in M is si ss ippi. They ar e: Charl i e L. Be a s l e y , Sr
. , Ot i s Box, J i mmy C. Buc hanan, J ohn Cannon, Or e a di s Cr a i g, N ath an iel H arp er, Willie H arp er, F rank linH unter, R ich ardM ead o w s, B enP o lk , E rn est Taylor, Wi ll ieWi ll iam s, Clar enceHewitt , J .C. Davis , W al la ceWubb le s, Julius Baker, Jam es B ills, an dT h o m as C ab e. K e rnc l a i m s h e w a s e xp o s e dt o a s b e s t o s wh i l e w o rk i n g i nA tt a l aC o unty, 2 

### Mi s s i s s ippiand i n I l l i noi s , and thus the t e rm “ out - of- s t at e a

ppe l l e e s ” r e fe r s t o the 18 n am edinf

o o tn o te 1 , p lu s K ern . 2 1 9 a p p e llee s a rg u e th is a p p e a l is m o o t b e c a u se , p rio r to 3 M ’s f ili n g , the yo f

f e re d to
v o lu n ta ri ly d is m is s th e irc la im s . ¶2. W e hol d t hat t he appea l i s not m oot and t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o a p p l yt h e mu l t i
- f

a c t o r - b a l a n c i n g t e s tt o t h e wh o l l y o u t - o f
- s t a t e a p p e l l e e s . T h e r e f o r e we 1
rever se an d render, grant i ng 3M ’s m oti on t o dis m i ss as t o t he w ho l l y ou t -of- st at e app el l ees. A s to W ill ie K e rn , w e re v e rse th e trial co u rt’s d e c isio n a n d re m a n d w ith a n o rd e r to a p p ly 2 t he m ult i -fact or- balanci ng t estt o see w hether he, t oo , shou l d be dis m i ssed. B ecause the fi rs t iss u e is d isp o sitiv e o f th is a p p e a l, w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss 3 M ’s v io latio n o f c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts
a rg u m e n t. FACTS ¶ 3
. 3 M is o n e o f

m a n yd e f

e n d a n ts in th is a sb e sto s a c tio n , w h ich in iti a llyin v o lv e d a sin g le compl ai ntby185 pl ai nt i ffs agai ns t70 defe ndant s see k ing damages fori nj ur i es fr om exp osure t o asbest os-cont ai ning prod ucts . O nly 36 of the 185 plai nti ffs i n the i nit i al m assto r t a c ti o n h a d a c laim a g a in st 3 M , an d o n ly1 7 o f th o se 3 6 c lea rlyh a d a c o n n e c tio n w ith M iss iss ip p i. O n e p la in tiff , W ill ie K e rn , h a d a c o n n e c tio n w ith M iss iss ip p i, bu t h is

### T h e id entity o f all tenp laintif

f s inth e trial g ro up is n o t kn o wnb y th e C o urt. 3 

### H o w ev er, th e f

o ur p laintif

f s w ithclaim s ag ain st 3 M wh o rem ain edp arties o nap p eal in Johns on I

, w ere S im eo nJo hn so n , Jam es C urry , B o b b y Jo e L awren ce an dP h illip P ate. F ro m th is C o urt’s o p in io n , it is n o t kn o wnwh ere th ey claim edth eir in

j uries aro se. H o w ev er, n o n e o f

th e f o ur f ro m th e o rig in al trial g ro up are p arties to th e in stant ap p eal. The Roc kfor d, I l l i noi s a

ppe l l e e s ar e : Charl i e L. Be a s l e y , Sr
. , Ot i s Box, J i mmy C. 4 

### B u ch an an , Jo hnC ann o n , O read is C raig , N ath an iel H arp er, Willie H arp er, F rank lin H unter, R ich ardM ead o w s, B enP o lk , E rn est T aylo r an dWillie William s. 3 connec t i on w i t h I l l i noi s w as l ongeri n dur at i on. N one of the 18 w hol l yout - of- s t at e appe l l ees
w o rk e d , re s id e d o r h a d a n yc o n n e c tio n w ith H o lm e s C o u n ty. ¶4. T hi s i s t he s econd t i m e thi s cas e has found i t s w ayt o t hi s C our t . Pr evi ous l y , i n 3M Co . v . J o h n s o n , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 1 5 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ) ( Jo hns on I ) , a t r i al gr oup of t en pl ai nt i ffs w as 3 chos en: t hr ee s et t l ed bef or e ordur i ng t r i al , and one w as di s m i s s ed. O f the s i x r emai ni ng p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e t r i a l g r o u p , o n l yf o u rh a d a c l a i m a g a i n s t3 M
. The ot h e rt wo h a d c l a i ms agai ns tot herdefe ndant s . A tt r i al t he j ur y aw ar ded $25 m i l l i on t o eac h pl ai nt i ff. O n appea l t his C ou rtrever sed and rendered i n favo r of 3M as t o the fou r pl ai nti ffs w i t h clai m s agai nst 3M
. A s t o t he pl ai nt i ffs noti n t he tri al group, t hi s C our ti ns t ruct ed thatt hei rcl ai m s be
s ever ed acc or di ng t o t hi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n Ja ns s e n Pharm ac e uti c a, I nc . v . Arm ond , 866 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶5. 3M now ar gues t hat t he 19 out - of- s t at e ap p ell ees shoul d be di s m i s s ed becaus e 3M i s s ubs t ant i al l yi nconveni ence d byhavi ng t o l i t i gat e thei rcl ai m s i n H ol m es C ount y . T w el ve
o f th e 1 9 claim ex p o su re to asb esto s-co n tai n ing p rod u cts at th e G ree n lee B roth ers F o u n d ry i n R ockfor d, I ll inoi s . Si x cl ai m s i m i l aras bes t os expos ur e i n ot herpl ace s i ncl udi ng: 4

### Clar enceHewitt , Jr. (Chica go ), J. C. Davis ( Lo uisi ana) , W al la ceWubb le s 5 

### (M inn eso ta), Ju liu s B ak er (M isso uri), Jam es B ills (C o lo rad o ) an dT h o m as C ab e (N o rth C aro lin a). 4 Ch i c a g o , Co l o r a d o , M i n n e s o t a , Lo u i s i a n a , M i s s o u r i a n d No r t h Ca r o l i n a . On l y Ke r n c l a i ms 5 expos ur e fr om m or e than one pl ace . ¶6. O n O ct ob er 17, 20 03 , 3M fi l ed it s m oti on t o di sm i ss for forum no n co nv eniens against the o u t- o f-state p lai n ti ff s. In resp o n se, the ou t- o f-state p lai n ti ff s arg u ed that, w h il e the yw ere notfr om M i s s i s s i ppi , t heyw er e p rop erly j oi ned w i t h pl ai nt i ffs fr om M i s s i s s i ppi , and t her efor e venue w as pr operi n H ol m es C ount y . T he pl ai nt i ffs a rgu ed thatbeca us e of the
v a rie tyo f

p a rties , the re w a s n o p e rf e c t f o ru m , an d th e re f

o re a les s-th a n -p e rf

e c t, bu t still p ro p e r f o ru m , w a s a c c e p tab le. A f ter h e a rin g a rg u m e n ts, th e trial ju d g e ’s b e n c h ru lin g , in its
e n tirety , p ro v id e d th a t: T he courtfi nds t hatt he out
- of- s t at e pl ai nt i ffs have s i m i l arcl ai m s t o t he p lai n ti ff s in M issi ssipp i and in H o lm es C o u n ty , an d there fo re , th eyare pr oper l ybefor e thi s C our t , and the M ot i on t o D i s m i s s For um o f [s i c] N on C o n v e n ie n s is d e n ie d
. 3 M m o v e d f

o r pe rm iss io n to f

ile an in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l w h ich w a s d e n ied b yth e trial c o u rt, buti t s s ubs equentpet i t i on fori nt er l ocut or yappea l t o t hi s C our tw as gr ant ed. A N A L Y S IS ¶7. T he appe l l ees ar gue thi s appea l i s m oot , beca us e, pr i or t o t he fi l i ng of br i efs , t hey had offe r ed t o “di s m i s s out of s t at e pl ai nt i ffs w ho di d nothave e xpos ur e her e i n M i s s i s s i ppi or have a M i s s i s s i ppi defe ndant ”. T hatoffe rw as m ade i n a J ul y1, 2005 , let ter fr om B yr d,

### 5

G i bbs & M ar t i n, PL L C t o 3M ’ s couns el , B aker D onel s on, aft er 3M fi l ed i t s pet i t i on i n t he t r i a l c o u r t b u t p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f 3 M ’ s p e t i t i o n i n t h i s C o u r t . T h e l e t t e rs t a t e s i n i t s e n t i r e t y: I w as cal l i ng t o s ee i f w e coul d r es ol ve t hi s l as ti nt er l ocut or yappea l on t h e S i me o n J o h n s o n c a s e . I n l i g h t o f t h e n u me r o u s d e c i s i o n s t h a th a v e c o me dow n fr om t he Supr eme C our t , i tappea r s t o m e tha t o utof s t at e ca s es fi l ed her e forthos e w ho di d nothave e xpos ur e her e i n M i s s i s s i ppi orhave a M i s s i s s i ppi defe ndant , need t o be di sm issed
. T o m e thatw as t he thrus tof 3 M ’s m o tio n th a t is o n th e in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l. W e are p rep ar ed t o m ove forw ar d w i t h a M angi al ar di O r deri n t he Si m eon J ohns on cas e thatw oul d di s m i s s out of s t at e pl ai nt i ffs w ho w er e not ex p o sed h ere in M issi ssipp i, if 3 M w o u ld vo lun tari lyd ism iss th e interloc u tory a p p e a l.P lease g ive m e a ca ll so w e c an d iscu ss this fu rth er. T he l et t erdi d notcont ai n a l i s tof appel l ees t hatw oul d be di s m i s s ed. N o pr opos ed M angi al ar di O r derw as everpr offe r ed to 3 M ort he tr i al cour t . 3M di d notr es pond t o t he l et t er , ci t i ng t hat i t di d not offe r t o uncondi t i onal l y di s m i s s t he out
- of- s t at e appe l l ees . T he lette r w a s a t b e s t an o f f e r to b e g in n e g o tiatio n s a n d n o t o n e th a t w o u ld m o o t th e a p p e a l. W hen the appe al w as t aken, t he di s put e w as s eas onabl e, and t he off erw as i ncompl et e and
a m b ig u o u s in b o th s c o p e a n d e f f e c t. T h e re f

o re , th is c a s e is ri p e f

o r r e v ie w . ¶8. I n r evi ew ing the tr ial court ’ s deci s i on t o gr antordenya mot i on forforum non
c o n v e n ie n s th is C o u rt w ill u p h o ld th e tr ia l c o u rt u n le s s it w a s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . Ill. Ce n t. R .R . Co . v. T

ra v is , 808 So. 2d 928, 930 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 2 ). T hi s C our tr ece nt l yhel d t hateven t hough as bes t os l i t i gat i on i s a “matur e t or t ”, t he part i es m us ts t i l l compl yw i t h t he tr adi t i onal lim its im p o s e d b yth e ru le s o f c iv il p ro c e d u re . H a ro ld ’s A u to P a rts , I

nc. v. Mangi alar di ,

### 6

889 So. 2d 493, 493 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 4 ). E x p andi ng on t hat , t hi s C our thas poi nt ed outt hat
c o n v e n ien c e a n d ju d icia l ec o n o m ym u st y ield to a p a ra m o u n t c o n c e rn f o r a p a rty ’s r ig h t to
a f a irtr ia l. Il

l . Cen t . R . R . , Co. v. G regory , 9 1 2 S o . 2d 829, 834 ( M i s s . 2005) ( benef i t s of ef ficien cyca n n ev er b e p u rch ase d at th e c o st of fa irn ess). ¶9. T hi s C our t has hel d t hat t he cour t s of t hi s s t at e s houl d no t tr y ca ses that w oul d be
s er i ous l yi nconveni entt o one orm or e of t he part i es , pr ovi ded thata more appr opr i at e forum
c a n b e f o u n d
. McW

horterv. Cal

-Maine Far m s, I

nc. , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ); Mo . P . R . Co . v. T

irc u it , 554 So. 2d 878, 881- 82 ( M i s s . 1989)
. T hi s C our thas al s o l ai d out
a m ul t i
- fac t or t es t w hi ch shoul d be consi der ed i n any appl i cat i on forforum non conveni ens d is m is s a l. T

irc u it , 554 So. 2d at882. T he r evi ew i ng cour tm us tbal ance var i ous publ i c and p riv a te in ter e sts in o rd e r to d e ter m in e if li ti g a tio n in th e c h o se n f o ru m w o u ld se rio u sly i nconveni ence a part y . T he fa ct or s ar e: ( 1) r el at i ve ea s e and acc es s t o s our ces of pr oof; ( 2) avai l abi l i t yof compul s orypr oces s forobt ai ni ng at t endanc e of u n w il l i ng w i t nes s es ; ( 3) pos s i bi l i t yof a vi ew of t he pre m i s es ( i f appr opr i at e) ; ( 4) expens e ort r oubl e t o t he def endant notnece s s aryt o t he pl ai nt i ff’ s ow n r i ghtt o pur s ue hi s r emedy ; ( 5) admi ni s t r at i ve bur den on M i s s i s s i ppi cour t s i n ent er t ai ni ng t he s ui t ; ( 6) w hethert her e ar e l ocal i nt er es t s i n deci di ng th e c a s e a t h o m e ; a n d (7 ) t h e p la in tif f ’s f o ru m s h o u ld ra re ly b e d is tu rb e d
. McW horter , 913 S o . 2 d a t 1 9 6
. ¶ 1 0
. I t has b e c o me a p p a r e n t t h a t o u r c u r r e n t a p p r o a c h h a s l e d t o s o me confus i on, and t her efor e a br i ef hi s t or yof the or i gi n of t hi s m ul t i
- fac t or bal anci ng t es ti s appr opr i at e. I n t he

### 7

tw o m o s t re c e n t c a s e s o n th is s u b je c t, G r egor

y and Mc W

h o r te r , this C o u rtan n o u n ce d fa ctors to b e c o n s id e re d
. G r egor y l i s t s s i x fac t or s , w hi l e McW horter i ncl udes a seve nt h fac t or . T he fac t orfound i n McW

horter , butm i s s i ng i n G regory , i ns t ruct s t he cour t t o appl ydefe r ence t o the pl ai nti ff’s choi ce of forum
. In both of t hese cases, on e can t race the li neag e of t he tes t back t o T irc u it w h ic h h a d s e v e n f

a c to rs . T irc u it pul l ed thes e fa ct or s fr om t w o U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt d e c is io n s , G u l f O il Corp. v. G il

bert , 330 U
. S. 501, 67 S. C t . 839, 91 L
. E d. 1 0 5 5 ( 1 9 4 7 ) w h i c h w a s l a t e rm o d i f i e d b y P ip e rA ir c r a

ft Co r p . v . R e y n o , 454 U
. S. 235, 102 S
. Ct
. 2 5 2 , 7 0 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 1 9 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , a n d t h e Re s t a t e me n t( S e c o n d ) o f Co n f l i c to f L a ws Sect i on 84. T h e s e re f

e re n c e th e f

a c to rs b u t d o n o t e n u m e ra te th e m a s th is C o u rt d id
. ¶ 1 1
. T h e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me Co u r t a n d t h e Re s t a t e me n t ( S e c o n d ) o f Co n f l i c t o f L a ws d id n o t c re a te a m a th e m a tica l e q u a tio n b u t in ten d e d th a t th e se f a c to rs b e w e ig h e d a lo n g w ith
o th e r r e le v a n t c o n s id e ra tio n s . See P ip e r A irc ra ft, 4 5 4 U .S . at 2 4 9 ; G u lf O il , 330 U
. S. at508; see al so R es t at ement ( Second) C onfl i ct of L aw s § 84 cmt
. c. I n P ip e r A irc ra ft t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n di s cus s i ng t he doctr i ne of f orum non conveni ens opi ned:
w e w o uld not l aydo w n a ri gid rule t o g ov ern di scr et i on and t hat each case tur ns on i t s fac t s . I f ce nt r al emphasi s w er e pl ace d on anyone fa ct ort he forum n o n c o n v e n ien s d o c trin e w o u ld lo se m u c h o f th e v e ryf

lex ib ili tyth a t m a k e s it s o val uabl e. P iper A ircra

ft , 454 U
. S. at249- 50. Fr om r evi ew i ng t he devel opm entof the l aw , i ti s cl ear t hatt he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti nt en d ed the forum non conveni ens anal y s i s t o be a
m ult i -fact or t estw i t h si x fac t ors com pri si ng t he rel ev a n t pub l i c and pri vate i nter est s,

### 8

b a la n c e d a g a in s t th e d e f e re n c e a f f o rd e d to th e p la in tif

f ’s c h o ic e o f

f o ru m . I d. a t 2 5 5 ; G u lf O il , 3 3 0 U .S . a t 5 0 8
. ¶1 2
. C o m m en t c o f S ec ti o n 8 4 o f the R estatem en t w h ich w as cit ed fa v o rab ly b y this C o u rt i n T irc u it, l a y s o u ta d e t a i l e d a p p r o a c h t o a n a l y s i s o f a f o ru m n o n c on ve n i e n s p r o b l e m. T ircu it , 554 So. 2d at881 ( ci t i ng She wbooks v . A. C. & S. , I nc . , 52 9 S o. 2d 55 7 (M i ss. 1 9 8 8 )). C o m m e n t c in stru c ts th a t o n e sh o u ld w e ig h th e re lev a n t p u b lic a n d p riv a te in ter e sts ( t h e s i x f a c t o r s s h a r e d b y G r egor y and McW

horter ) a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f ’ s c h o i c e o f

f o ru m; h o w ev er, no co n clus ion o n the m o ti o n s h o u ld b e m ad e w ith o u t determ ining w h ethe r th ere is a s u ita b le a lte rn a tiv e f o ru m . See R es t at ement ( Second) of C onfl i ctof Law s § 84 cmt
. c. I tappea r s fr om C om m ent c t hat t he pl ai nt i ff’ s choi ce of forum i s nota fa ct ort o be w ei ghed b uta pr es um pt i on t o be over come. T hus , t he tr i al cour ts houl d defa ul tt o t he pl ai n ti ff ’s
c h o ic e o f f o ru m u n le s s th e p u b lic a n d p ri v a te in te re s ts d e f e a t th a t p re s u m p tio n . See P i per A irc ra ft, 454 U
. S. at255- 56; T irc u it , 5 5 4 S o . 2 d a t 8 8 3
. ¶ 1 3
. T h is C o u rt p r e v io u sly a p p lied th e m u lti -f a c to r-b a lan c in g tes t to w h o llyo u t-o f -sta te appel l ees . I n G r e

g o r y, n in e f o rm e r an d c u rre n t ra ilro a d e m p lo y e e s f iled su it ag a in st Illin o is C e n tr a l a lle g in g th a t o c c u p a tio n a l e x p o s u re to a s b e s to s c a u s e d th e irlu n g c a n c e r. G regory , 912 So. 2d at831. I n t hat cas e, s even pl ai nt i ffs w er e ei t her M i s s i s s i ppi r es i dent s oral l eged
ex p o su re i n M i s s i s s i ppi , w hi l e the r emai ni ng t w o w er e nei t herM i s s i s s i ppi r es i dent s nor
e x p o s e d w h ile in M is s is s ip p i. Id
. at 83 2-33. T his C ou rt held t hat the o ut- of-st at e plai nti ffs,
w h o s e c a u s e o f

a c tio n a c c ru e d e ls e w h e re , s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d
. Id
. at 83 6 -37
. T h is C o u rt

### 9

hel d t hatt he doctr i ne of f orum non conveni ens pr ot ect s l i t i gant s fr om unnece s s arybur dens
a n d th e c o u rt s a n d ta x p a y e rs f ro m in c u rr in g th e e x p e n s e o f litig a tin g f o re ig n d is p u te s . I

d at 836. B eca us e the evi dence w as out - of- s t at e, t he r el evant w i t nes s es w er e out - of- s t at e and the appel l ees t hemsel ves w er e out - of- s t at e, t hi s C our topi ned thatM i s s i s s i ppi had no conne ct i on
w ith th e la w s u it a n d th e re f o re it s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d
. Id
. ¶14
. F oll ow i ng t hat r at i on al e, t he 1 8 w ho l l yo u t-o f -sta te a p p e llees i n the present case
s houl d be di s m i s s ed. 3M i s corr ect i n i t s as s er t i on t hat t o do ot herw i s e w oul d be a s er i ous i nconveni ence . For3M t her e w oul d be di ffi cul t yi n obt ai ni ng t he evi dent i arypr oof nee ded to c o n f ro n t th e a p p e lle e s ’ c la im s . See T irc u it , 554 So. 2d at883 ( di s m i s s al i s favor ed w hen t he maj or i t yof the pr oof i s l ocat ed in an o thers t at e)
. I n t he pr es entcas e vi r tual l yal l t he
re lev a n t ev id e n c e , b o th w itn e ss e s a n d d o c u m e n ts, f o r th e w h o llyo u t-o f

-sta te a p p e llee s is l ocat ed out s i de of M i s s i s s i ppi
. T hi s i ncl udes t he appel l ees ’ m edi cal hi s t or i es , w or k s i t es and
e m p lo ym e n t in f

o rm a tio n . See ge ner al l y McW horter , 913 So. 2d at196- 97 ( fi ndi ng t hat A rk a n sa s w a s a m o re c o n v e n ien t f o ru m w h e re a lleg e d in

ju rie s a ro se d u e to e x p o su re to chi cken hous e w as t e i n A r kans as )
. T hi s l eads di r ect l y t o an addi t i onal di ffi cul t yfor3M – any
w itn esse s an d ev iden ce fo r the w h o ll y o u t- o f-state ap p ell ee s are b ey o n d th e co m p u lsory
s ubpoena pow erof the tr i al cour t . T hi s w oul d r equi r e 3M t o t r avel t o m ul t i pl e l ocat i ons and
o b ta in a s s is ta n c e f

ro m f o re ig n c o u rt s to s e c u re p ro c e s s . See Id
. ¶15
. In t he present case, a view of t he prem i ses by t he j ury w ou l d i s un necessary , becau se t he appe l l ees do notas s er tt hat3M ’ s fac i l i t i es caus ed t h eir inju ri es. R ather , t he appe l l ees

### 10

asse rt that 3 M ’s p rod u cts fa il ed to ad eq u atelyp rotec t th em fro m injury
. T h ere fo re, th e jury
w o u ld g a in n o th in g f

ro m b e in g s h o w n th e p re m is e s . ¶16. T he choi ce of

H ol m es C ount yas a forum does n o t im p o se u n n eces s aryt r oubl e or expens e on 3M , i n t he s en se tha t3M w i l l be r equi r ed t o fac e thes e appe l l ees i n one forum
o r a n o th e r. T h a t th e ya re c o n so lid a ted in a sin g le f o ru m is f o rtu ito u s f

o r 3 M . H a v in g to defe nd t hes e cl ai m s i n one forum m eans t her e w oul d be no dupl i cat i ve cos t s . 3M w oul d not be for ced t o r ai s e the s ame ar gum ent s i n di ffe r ent cour t s . H ow ever , j udi ci al economycannot b e f a v o re d a t th e p ri c e o f

u n f a ir n e s s to th e p a rt ie s . G regory , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d a t 8 3 4
. ¶ 1 7
. T h e r e w i l l b e s e r i o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y i f t h i s c a s e i s t r i e d i n H o l m e s C o u n t y. Fi r s t , t he tr i al cour tw i l l have di ffi cul t ycompel l i ng t he pr oduct i on of document s and the
a tte n d a n c e o f

w itn e s s e s f

ro m o th e r st a te s . See P o o le v . A m . P u b . L if e I n s . Co ., 878 So. 2d 1 1 0 2 , 1 1 0 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). S e c o n d , th e trial c o u rt w ill lik e lyh a v e to a p p lyf o re ig n p ro d u c ts lia b ility s ta tu te s a n d g iv e m u ltip le ju ry i n s tru c tio n s . See State Far m Mut . A uto. I ns. Co. v. Murr i el , 904 So. 2d 112, 116 ( M i s s . 2004) ( aff i r m i ng t r i al cour t ’ s concl us i on t hatw her e the M i s s i s s i ppi cour tw oul d be for ced t o appl ynotonl yM i s s i s s i ppi l aw , butal s o C al ifo rnia, A laba m a a n d G eo rgia law , the c o n fu sion to the juryan d the b u rd e n o n the c o u rtare in s u rm o u n ta b le ). See al s o Mc W horter, 913 So. 2d at197. I n t he pr es entcas e, i f al l 18
w h o llyo u t-o f

-sta te a p p e llee s w e re n o t d ism iss e d , th e trial c o u rt w o u ld lik e ly h a v e to a p p ly t he l aw s of C ol or ado, I l l i noi s , L oui s i ana, N or t h C ar ol i na, M i nnes ot a, M i s s our i and M i s s i s s i ppi
. T hi s w oul d r equire sev en di ffe r entpr oduct s l i abi l i t ys t atut es , s even di ffe r ent

### 11

ju ryin stru c tio n s a n d se v e n d if f e re n t v e rd icts . T h is w o u ld c o n f u se th e ju r y a n d le a d to p o s s ib le e rr o r. ¶18
. H olm es C ou ntyl acks t he requ i red i nter esti n th e w h o lly o u t- of-st at e app el l ees’ cl ai m s , and i tw oul d be a w as t e of j udi ci al r es our ces i f t r i ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. T hes e appe l l ees have no c onnect i on t o M i s s i s s i ppi
. T hey ar e nei t her fr om M i s s i s s i ppi nor di d t hei ri nj ur i es
a r is e f ro m c o n d u c t in M iss iss ip p i. T h e c o u rts o f M iss iss ip p i w ill n o t b e c o m e th e d e f a u lt f o ru m f o r p lain tiff

s s e e k in g to c o n so lid a te m a ss -to rt a c tio n s. T o a llo w o th e rw ise w o u ld
w as t e fi ni t e j udi ci al r es o u rce s o n clai m s t hathave nothi ng t o do w i t h t he s t at e. E ach tr i al requi res t he em pan el i ng of M i ssi ssi pp i ans as j urors and t he u se of M i ssi ssi p p i t ax d oll ars . T h e s e r e s o u r c e s s h o u l d b e u s e d f o rc a s e s i n wh i c h M i s s i s s i p p i h a s a n i n t e r e s t . T h e r e f o r e , we fi nd M i s s i s s i ppi l acks t he nec es s aryi nt er es tt o keep thi s cas e her e. ¶19. T he above- m ent i oned publ i c and pr i vat e i nt er es t s w ei gh heavi l y i n favor of gr ant i ng 3M ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s for forum non conveni ens . I n addi t i on, l es s defe r ence s houl d be gi ven t o t he w hol l y out - of- s t at e appel l ees ’ choi ce of forum . A l t hough a pl ai nt i ff’ s choi ce of forum i s r ar el y di s turbed, t he choi ce of a for ei gn forum i s gi ven s ubs t ant i al l yl es s defe r ence . McW horter , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 9 6 . H o w e v e r, th is d o e s n o t m e a n it i s g iv e n n o d e f e re n c e a t all. T ra v is , 8 0 8 So
. 2 d a t9 3 8
. Be c a u s e o f t h e o b v i o u s d i f

f i c u l t i e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e a p p e l l e es
w h o w o u ld h av e to c o m e f rom sev en d iffe ren t st ates, i t i s li k ely that the ch o ice of fo rum h ere
w as m ade f

ort h e co n v en ienc e of c ouns el r athert han the conve ni ence of the part i es . T he
w h o ll y o u t- o f

-s ta te ap p ell ee s h av e n o t cho sen their ho m e f o rum , an d there fo re this C o u rt

### 12

s h o u ld a f f o rd th e m le s s d e f

e re n c e th a n tr a d itio n a lly e x p e c te d
. See P iper A ircra ft , 45 4 U. S.
a t 2 5 5 -5 6
. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 0
. T h e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g 3 M ’s m o tio n to d ism iss th e 1 8 w h o lly
ou t -of- st at e app el l ees for forum no n co nv eniens. C om pell i ng 3M to d e fend againstt hese appel l ees cr eat es a s ubs t ant i al i nconveni ence t o 3M
. A s appl i ed t o K ern, t he tr i al cour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o cons i derhi m i ndi vi dual l yand apply t he mul t i
- fac t or - bal anci ng t es t . T he tr i al
c o u rt d en ied 3 M ’s m o ti o n o n the g rou n d s tha t al l th e p lai n ti ff s’ ha d “sim il ar c lai m s .” H ow ever , s i m i l arcl ai m s do not , i n- and- of themsel ves , s ur vi ve a mot i on t o di s m i s s forforum non conveni ens . T he tr i al cour tneeds t o have a det ai l ed fa ctual acc ount i ng of the cl ai m ed
connec t i ons betw een the i ndi vi dual chal l enged pa r t yand the forum . T he tr i al cour tfai l ed t o d o thi s an d m ade i t s d eci si on based o n all eged si m i l ari t i es r at her than t he fa ctual det ai l s; t herefore, i t s fi nd i ng s ar e err on eou s. ¶ 2 1
. A s to th e 1 8 w h o lly o u t-o f -sta te a p p e llee s, th is C o u rt’s d e c isio n a c ts to d ism iss th e ir cl ai m s . A s t o K ern, w e r emand t o t he tr i al cour tw i t h t he or d er to conductfur t herfac tual analy si s consi st ent w i t h thi s opini on t o det erm i ne w hether he should be i ncluded
. B ecause
ourhol di ng on 3M ’ s fi r s t i s s ue i s di s pos i t i ve of t he appeal w e do not addr es s t he vi ol at i on of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar gum entr ai s ed i n i s s ue tw o. ¶ 2 2
. R E V E R S E D A N D R E N D E R E D IN P A R T ; R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D IN PART.

### 13

S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , CONCUR. EA S LE Y, J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I TH O UT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. GRAVE S , J . , DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. DI AZ AND RA ND OL P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .